DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 210 of 13.5.2016
Decided on: 8.3.2017
Komal son of late Sh.Krishan Kumar R/o H.No.99, Street No.1, Jhuhjar Nagar, Patiala now at # 812, St. No.8-B, B-Block, Shaheed Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Near Angitha Sahib Gurdwara, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India, Branch at Iqbal Complex, Gurbax Colony, Patiala through its Manager.
…………Opposite Part
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.A.S.Korey,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Sh.Yogesh Rai Mangla, Advocate,
counsel for opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Komal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.). In brief the case of the complainant is as under:
That a cheque bearing No.139285 dated 220.3.2016 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was issued in his favour by Ranjiv Rana having A/c No.55005430543 maintained with State Bank of Patiala,branch at Indian Oil Complex, Patiala. He presented the cheque with the O.P. for clearance on 23.3.2016.The O.P. sent the cheque to the banker of Ranjiv Rana after putting two cross lining on the same. The cheque could not be encahsed by the Banker of Ranjiv Rana and issued return memo report dated 23.3.2016 mentioning therein “kindly contact Drawer/Drawee Bank and please present again”. He enquired from the concerned clerk regarding putting of cross lining on the cheque. The clerk concerned stated that mistakenly, cross linings having been marked by her on the cheque. The putting of cross lining on the cheque clearly showed the connivance of the bank with the person who has issued the cheque for causing loss to him as initially when the cheque was presented there was no cross linings on the same.He requested the O.P. for the clearance of the cheque as the fault has been occurred on its part but the O.P. failed to respond. He also got sent a legal notice upon the O.P., who filed vague reply. Thus the complainant has suffered from mental pain, physical harassment and financial los. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the O.P. to pay cheque amount with interest alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and costs of the complaint
2. The O.P. on being put to notice appeared and filed the written version. It is admitted that the complainant presented the cheque for clearance on 23.3.2016.The cheque was sent for clearing through standard clearing process to State Bank of Patiala branch Indian Oil Corporation.It is denied that it put two cross lines on the cheque, due to which the cheque could not be encashed and returned by the bankers of the drawer. It is stated that as per standard procedure when the cheque was sent for clearance from different branch, the same is being sent in the shape of a scanned copy, while the original is placed in the bank in which the cheque is deposited for clearance. It is further stated that at the time of sending the scanned copy of the cheque to the clearing house, there were no lines drawn on the same.The O.P. bank is a public sector bank and such type of incident does not happen anywhere in any branch.The complainant unnecessarily is trying to shift the burden upon the bank. It has still with the copy of the cheque, which was sent through scan to the drawee bank. As such the allegation put forth by the complainant is not sustainable. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant, in order to prove her case, tendered in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and her counsel closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the ld. counsel for the O.P. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Abhinav Goyal alongwith the documents Ex.OP1 to OP3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. The ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the employee of the O.P. drawn lines on cheque, that is why, the clearing bank refused to clear the cheque. Therefore, O.P. may kindly be directed to pay the cheque amount. They be also directed to pay compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses.
6. The ld. Counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued that the complainant has levelled the false allegations against the employee of the bank. As per standard procedure, the scanned copy of the cheque was sent to the clearing bank. From the scanned copy of the cheque, Ex.OP1, it is evident that there were no lines on it . After receipt of the said cheque, the complainant himself has drawn the lines on it just to grab the money from the bank.
7. From the perusal of cheque Ex.C1, it is apparent that two parallel lines are drawn on the cheque in question. The complainant has alleged that the lines have been drawn by the employee of the O.P, whereas the O.P. has alleged that the lines on the cheque have been drawn by the complainant herself. Since both the parties are leveling allegation against each other, for adjudication of which, in a just and proper manner, the evidence produced on record by both the parties is not sufficient and leading of voluminous evidence, examination and cross examination of the witnesses and detailed investigation is required, which is not possible in this Forum, because the proceedings before the Forum being summary in nature. As such, the effective remedy which lies with the complainant is to file a civil suit for redressal of his grievance. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:8.3.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
